^{page 45 note 1} The earliest reconstructions, which equated Orthagoras and Andreas, were outmoded by the discovery of the papyrus fragment (F.Gr.H. 105 F 2). This fragment is a fuller and longer version of incidents summarized in D.S. 8. 24 and Plu. 553 a; it is either the source on which D.S. and Plutarch drew, or it shared a common source with them.

^{page 46 note 1} Hespcria, xix. (1950), 376 f.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} F.Gr.H. 90 p 61. Nicolaus Damascenus, having narrated the murder of Myron, says of Cleisthenes simply

^{page 46 note 3} Cf. Plu. 553 b , which mean ‘Myron and his family’ and ‘Cleisthenes and his family’, in the sense that Myron and Cleisthenes respectively were ‘tyrant’ but other members of the family participated in the regime; see L.S.J s.v. 2.c, and compare Plu. GQ 32 and Androtion (F.Gr.H. 324 F 6)

^{page 48 note 1} These dates are entered as a guide to probability, on the assumption of an average interval of thirty-three years between the birth of the father and that of his eldest son. Exceptions, of course, occurred. Thus Alcmeon was probably born later than 637, since he visited Croesus in Lydia shortly after the envoys of Croesus visited Delphi in 556/5 (Hdt. 6. 125; F.Gr.H. 239 A 41). That the ‘Megacles, son of Alcmeon’ in Hdt. 1. 59, 6, 6. 125, and 6. 127 was one and the same person in Herodotus’ mind and in fact, is here taken for granted.

^{page 48 note 2} The Delphic Oracle (1939), 134.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 3} Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library (ed. Hunt, A. S., 1911), p. 29Google Scholar and Pl. 6. Of col. i only a few tatters remain. The left-hand margin of col. ii is intact; the right-hand margin is tattered. For bibliography see Jacoby on F.Gr.H. 105 F 1. He himself suggests the fragment is from a treatise on the Seven Wise Men. In a footnote it must suffice to express my own views of the fragment.

The papyrus dates from the second century B.C. The brevity of style and content suggests an epitome of a detailed Greek History rather than an epitome of a special treatise on Spartan history, in which might be otiose, or of a treatise on the Seven Wise Men, whose fame in the works of other authors rested on their pithy sayings and not on military or colonial achievements. Any Greek History of a general character, composed probably in the fourth or third century, will serve as the original of the epitome; if in so conjectural a matter any name is worth mentioning, it is that of Ephorus.

In regard to detail, the words show that this is the first mention of Chilon, and the single word implies that he has been mentioned earlier in the epitome; there is an exact parallel in Polybius 4. 81. 1 and where Chilon is a newcomer and the king Lycurgus has already been mentioned. That Anaxandrides should have been mentioned earlier in the fragment fits an epitome of a Greek History but not an epitome of a treatise on the Seven Wise Men. The aorist participles and are unusual. In classical Greek the present tense is normal when the temporal significance is prominent, but here it is a sign of the compendious writing of an epitom-ist that the time and agency are conflated in the aorist participles. We may translate ‘the Ephorate of Chilon the Laconian and the generalship of Anaxandrides caused the deposition of the tyrannies in Greece’. Chilon was evidently the agent of the policy and Anaxandrides the agent of the military action. The words of the epitomist may not be correct by classical standards; for classical authors use of the office, not the policy of an ephor, and they use of a Spartan king commanding in the field (e.g. Th. 1. 114. 2; X. H.G. 4. 7. 2). But they are appropriate to the compendious style of a Hellenistic epitomist of a general history.

When this article was in typescript, the editors kindly referred me to Mr. D. M. Leahy, and he has generously told me his views before they are published. He has studied the papyrus and reads not , and he accepts the restoration . If his reading is correct, we have an example of the schema Pindaricum, in which a plural subject is thought of as a single concept (here ‘the Spartan state’) and this causes a singular verb. The restoration leads to the difficulties to which I refer in my text; for if Chilon was both ephor and commander, it is difficult to see what part Anaxandrides played in putting down the tyrannies.

^{page 50 note 1} The preceding fragments should refer to the end of the year 557/6. Operations there concern a crossing to the mainland, a probable mention of Sparta in Col. 1 and the foundation of settlements on “much of the coastal…”. Hunt restored in 1. 15 , noting that Π is doubtful and makes the first four letters of the line somewhat cramped. A geographical name would be better than a second adjective. I suggest reading , there being room for the two letters -as in the preceding line; Sparta was then founding settlements near the frontier of Messenia and not, as Hunt and Jacoby suggest, near Ambracia.

^{page 50 note 2} Theognis mentions a tyrant among other dangers (e.g. 40; 1204). Phlius suffered under a tyranny about this time (cf. Müller, F.H.G. 4. 503 = Sosicrates 17b), one tyrant being named Leon.

^{page 51 note 1} If Spartan influence lay behind Peisistratus' withdrawal, Herodotus perhaps failed to mention it because his source of informa tion was pro-Athenian and pro-Alcmeonid in sympathy.

^{page 51 note 2} The conclusion that Peisistratus' second exile began in 556/5 coincides with the con clusion of Adcock, , C.Q. xviii. 174,Google Scholar who approached this problem from a different angle. Jacoby, , Atthis, 194,Google Scholar inclines to 557/6 rather than 556/5.

^{page 51 note 3} Arist. Pol. 1316 ^a 30 has been used to support the contention that Myron was not a brother of Cleisthenes; but not, I think, rightly. Aristotle means that the murder of Myron might have led to liberation, but in fact (after one year under Isodamus) Sicyon fell under the tyranny of Cleisthenes. To this meaning the relationship of Myron to Cleisthenes is irrelevant. Another awkward passage to use is Plutarch 553 b where it is stated that, in fulfilment of the oracle, the Sicyonians were disciplined: ‘So-and-so and his family’ (see p. 46, n. 3 above), which suggests that Myron II (to whom the passage probably refers, as he was a violent man) and Cleisthenes were not of the same immediate family, i, e. not brothers.

^{page 52 note 1} Cypselus seized power at Corinth in 657. During his rule three illegitimate sons founded colonies; in 627 his legitimate son Periander succeeded as tyrant and died in 586/5. If Periander was seventy when he died, he may have been the first and only son of a marriage contracted by Cypselus as tyrant; Cypselus' illegitimate sons may have been sons by a previous wife whom he disowned on becoming tyrant.

^{page 52 note 2} In this last section the value of the historical tradition is of importance. The colourful character of the narratives in Nicolaus Damascenus and the Papyrus fragment has been used to suggest that the narrative is an anachronistic compilation (e.g. Busolt, , G.G. i. 635 f. and 662 f.).Google Scholar This does not follow. Herodotus' narrative about the tyrants— Cypselus, Periander, Peisistratus, etc.—is certainly colourful and rightly so, for on any estimate the tyrants were colourful persons. One point in the narratives about Orthagoras hinges on an oracle circulated soon after 556/5, and Hdt. 5. 92 reports a similar oracle about Cypselus, circulated soon after 583. There is thus a reasonable probability that the account of the tyrants at Sicyon derives from sixth-century oral tradition, assimilable by a historian like Herodotus in the fifth century. The details of Isodamus’ pollution and its effects are most appropriate to this early period.